Upload
urania
View
38
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Scale uncertainties in ggF ->Higgs(+jets). J. Huston, S. Ellis, B. Mellado. Scale uncertainty. The Higgs cross section depends on the renormalization scale m R and factorization scale m F Consider default values for these two scales, m o,F and m o,R and expand around these values - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Scale uncertainties in ggF->Higgs(+jets)
J. Huston, S. Ellis, B. Mellado
Scale uncertainty The Higgs cross section depends on the renormalization scale mR
and factorization scale mF
Consider default values for these two scales, mo,F and mo,R and expand around these values
Can write the NLO Higgs cross section (actually any NLO cross section) near the reference scales as
…where the explicit logarithmic dependences have been factorized out; the b and c variables will depend on the kinematics
In general, there will be a saddle point, where the local slope as a function of mR,mF is zero
Around the saddle point, can write the scale dependence as
Consider inclusive jet production
Some 1-D slices
NLOJET++ with Applgrid
Use logarithmic scales
broad saddlepoint region
typical scale choice (pT
jet) is not atthe saddle pointbut scale uncertainty choicesinclude it
Saddle points
For cF>0,cR<0 and cF,|cR|>>|cRF|, the saddle point axes are aligned with the plot axes, as shown at the top right
At higher pT values, cRF<0 and cF,|cR|<<|cRF|, the saddle position rotates by about 45o
The saddle position also depends on jet size and on rapidity (somewhat)
In any case, the perturbative series is well-behaved for inclusive jet production, leading to stable predictions at NLO, using a scale related to the pT of the jet
…except perhaps when you go very far forward
2-D plots for ggF for Higgs The NNLO scale dependence looks similar to that for low pT inclusive jet
production, steep at low values of mR, shallow in mF
Note that there is no saddle point at NLO; it looks similar to LO for inclusive jet production ihixs
ggF at NNLO Note that the location of the
saddle point is at ~(0.15mH,0.24mH), i.e. outside of the range of uncertainties typically taken into account when using a scale of either mH or 0.5 mH
Saddle point ~23.1pb compared to 20.7pb for mH/2
ggF at NNLO Now consider a 450 GeV
Higgs produced by ggF There’s some rotation of the
saddle region as you would expect from the jet analysis
Saddle point also moves to smaller mF
Babis at GGI Points out that series is not well-
behaved and that even NNLO might not be enough for precision predictions
~N3LO prediction peaks near a scale of mHiggs
But normalization has not been determined; likely to have some additional positive corrections
• I don’t really understand the ~NNNLOcurve. Very large change in predicted cross section at low scales.• claims that 5% precision might be achievable at NNNLO. • good progress in the calculation, so maybe we don’t have toolong to wait
Now look at Higgs+1 jet at NLO This is for inclusive requiring only a 20 GeV/c cut on the jet; behavior is
monotonic and no saddle point is present; scale uncertainties are large and ill-defined
Higgs+1 jet at NLO This plot was generated using MCFM
running on a 5X5 grid of scale choices for mR and mF
What we’re trying to understand is how well we can define the scale uncertainties for Higgs+jets in a region where ggF dominates, use the measured cross section to pin down that cross section, and then translate that to the region where we are trying to measure the contribution of VBF
Can we define a region where ggF dominates and where the scale dependence is better-behaved
mF dependence As we have seen, the mF dependence is much flatter than the mR
dependence Mostly because ggF probes the gluon distribution in the region around the
inflection point For the higher x values probed in the VBF region, this will change
somewhat
Higgs + 1 jet No cuts on photons or
jets (other than jet pT
cuts shown) I said the scale
behavior of the Higgs+1 jet cross section was worrisome
The behavior of the NLO cross section becomes non-monotonic as the jet pT requirement increases
Higgs+1 jet: yjet
Apply selection cuts on photons
Require |yjet|<4.5
pTjet>25 GeV/c
Non-monotonic behavior only when jet rapidity is large
We need Higgs+1 jet at NNLO
Luckily that will happen in 2013
What about Higgs+2 jets? The 1-D plot is shown here Much better behavior than
either inclusive Higgs (at NNLO) or Higgs+1 jet (at NLO)
Higgs + 2 jets-2D pT
jet>20 GeV/c; |yjet|<5
Higgs + 2 jets-2D Cutoff at 2000 fb to look at peak in more detail
Higgs + 2 jets 2D Add a few cross section points at lower mR scale
Higgs + 2 jets-2D Cutoff at 2000 fb to look at peak in more detail
(mH,mH)s~3400 fb
speak~4000 fb
gg->Higgs + >= 2 jets red=Dyjj>1 green=Dyjj>2 blue=Dyjj>3 from top to bottom for
each Dy, lines show mjj>0,100, 200,300,400, 500 GeV
This is Dy>3,mjj>400 GeV, closest to VBF cuts
Cross sections for scales of 12.6 GeV (and sometimes for 25.2 GeV) are negative
For VBF-like cuts, scales of mHiggs lead to peak cross section
Cross section uncertainties on the order of 20%
pTjet>25 GeV/c
Higgs + 2 jets (after VBF cuts)Cross section
again peaks at a scale of mHiggs, so taking a factor of 2 up or down results in <20% scale uncertainty
Still need to look at 2D scale plots
SummaryThe hope is to incorporate some of this information into
Bruce’s noteSteve Ellis, myself, and Pavel Starovoitov are writing a
note/paper on scale dependence for inclusive jet production incorporating the detailed information we have for that process
Would be nice to try for an analytic understanding of the b and c parameters for both jet production and Higgs(+jets) production
Look for saddle point position (dijets)Position of saddle point
Black circles 0-0.3Red squares 0.3-0.8Green triangles 0.8-1.2Blue triangles 1.2-.21Magenta crosses 2.1-2.8
mR increases with y*/ymax
Black circles 0-0.3Red squares 0.3-0.8Green triangles 0.8-1.2Blue triangles 1.2-.21Magenta crosses 2.1-2.8
y*=(yj1-yj2)/2
mF increases with y*/ymax
Black circles 0-0.3Red squares 0.3-0.8Green triangles 0.8-1.2Blue triangles 1.2-.21Magenta crosses 2.1-2.8
Note: maybe no true saddle points at high y* and high mass, so script has trouble finding them; there are still flat places